Part of the problem with all the "official" UFO investigations was that no one could quite figure out what the people upstairs wanted to near, or what they were will to accept.

In any objective investigation, a certain percentage of these things will always come back unknown and unexplaining.

So people would be saying that we know they're not ours because we checked, and we know they don't belong to the Soviets or anyone else. We don't know what they are, so what are we supposed to do about it?

And round and round we go, again and again....

And there would always be some joker saying things like "well, you'd better bring us a live one, or at least get some pieces of one to examine", which is easier said than done!

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Posted 28 May 2012 - 03:42 PM

TheMcGuffin, on 28 May 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I have trouble thinking of something new to say that hasn't been said already, including the possible radar detection of teh object by the Air Force and scrambling some jets after it, although those records are not available. This is one of those cases of a possible attempt by the military to cover its own tests and experimental craft with a UFO story, although on the other hand it could also be a genuine unknown--one of many in that part of the world over the years.

Is there anything new to say about it?

Probably not McG, I do think there is more footage or photos from the 8pm sighting, and maybe a detailed breakdown of the witnesses during the day would be good.

as you say (a little later) we will be left going round the merry go round.

What got me into this was seeing a NatGeo piece last week. There were many many people shown making comments, interview or otherwise, and I found them to be telling what they saw. Happily nobody is yet claiming that some sort of holograph was at play.

Everybody described it about the same. Why should it NOT be a UFO? Why should it NOT be from some other place?

back later to discuss why Mitch Stanley's observation amounts to not very much at all

I personally own a 10" Dobsonian and have first hand witnessed what it is capable of, I have to say that it gives Mitch Stanley a massive advantage over the average viewer.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

back later to discuss why Mitch Stanley's observation amounts to not very much at all

I personally own a 10" Dobsonian and have first hand witnessed what it is capable of, I have to say that it gives Mitch Stanley a massive advantage over the average viewer.

I must agree that Mitch Stanley's impressions on the day should reign supreme based primarily on the superior visual capacity of his Dobsonian. Plus his observations were corroborated by others.

There are two types of people who enter this particular debate; the newcomers who aren't aware of the rather extensive analyses which have been performed and the old-timers who prefer to ignore the significance of those analyses.

I'm curious though Quillius, where were you planning to go with this argument?

What got me into this was seeing a NatGeo piece last week. There were many many people shown making comments, interview or otherwise, and I found them to be telling what they saw. Happily nobody is yet claiming that some sort of holograph was at play.

Everybody described it about the same. Why should it NOT be a UFO? Why should it NOT be from some other place?

That is what always gets me about the Phoenix lights. There are Pilots who were in the air, there are verified logs. We know that it is regulation to dump flares before landing. And nothing was dropped over a populated area because no flares or aliens landed on anyone's heads.

But what does every UFO show say about the military? Do not trust them, they lie all the time. Even though it can be confirmed that the above is true, and the confusion hailed greatly from a reporter reading the wrong log, being the visitors log which had the records of the A10's in it.

What else do the UFO shows do? Interview the local baker, some housewives and some bloke in the street. And somehow the interpretation of a zealous few trump the actual records! I mean lets forget actual records that are kept just exactly for this type of situation and ask the cat lady, or someone who is looking up at the sky. Everyone knows the military exists to lie to the public doesn't it?

Honestly, I do not understand that logic. Pilots are held up as the holy grail of witnesses (which I do not agree with) yet if a pilot works for the military he is part of the Government machine and cannot be trusted al of a sudden? And the average Joe in the street is much more likely to identify military flares than military personnel let alone official records?

One crackpot politician trying to get noticed is hardly proof of ET and does not confirm much more than a situation that one should be wary of I think.

They were flares, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that launched the flares.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

What got me into this was seeing a NatGeo piece last week. There were many many people shown making comments, interview or otherwise, and I found them to be telling what they saw. Happily nobody is yet claiming that some sort of holograph was at play.

Everybody described it about the same. Why should it NOT be a UFO? Why should it NOT be from some other place?

You mean from space right?

Pretty massive right?

Assuming the above is correct:

Why did not a single person see it head for space, or come from space? What about the millions of people like Mitch Stanley with their Dobsonian telescopes pointed at the sky? How did everyone on earth miss the entering and leaving the atmosphere/Solar System part? Why do no RADAR leaks tell us a UFO was tracked into space or it came from space?

Shouldn't space faring be a pre-requisite for a space craft?

Edited by psyche101, 29 May 2012 - 04:33 AM.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

Honestly, I do not understand that logic. Pilots are held up as the holy grail of witnesses (which I do not agree with) yet if a pilot works for the military he is part of the Government machine and cannot be trusted al of a sudden? And the average Joe in the street is much more likely to identify military flares than military personnel let alone official records?

I was an army officer, like my father and grandfather, but you can trust me. Of course, we do lie about things if they are secret or classified, and we deceive the other side a lot during wars, but that doesn't really count as lying in the conventional sense.

In fact, they don't even call that "lying" but "doing one's duty"...or something like that.

I well remember the first lie I had to tell when I was very young, concerning airstrips and bases we were supposed to be guarding somewhere in the far, far North, places not on any civilian maps, but we were all issued clothing and equipment for extreme cold weather conditions that made us all look like extras in the Ice Station Zebra movie. We had to lie about that, deny all information of it, but like I said, I didn't consider that lying at all, just a matter of security.

I was an army officer, like my father and grandfather, but you can trust me. Of course, we do lie about things if they are secret or classified, and we deceive the other side a lot during wars, but that doesn't really count as lying in the conventional sense.

In fact, they don't even call that "lying" but "doing one's duty"...or something like that.

Hi McGuffin

I do not doubt you at all. In fact I expect that certain secrets are necessary but I do not understand why so many believe that any person in the street is an expert in identifying these sort of situations when the military says they definitely do have an explanation, and it is quite plausible. If this was a Quintanella case or something where the many lights were called Venus or something as inappropriate I could understand, but so many just take a citizens view over a professionals for the sake of the conclusion. It' s just a little frustrating that energy is being spent on trying to promote something like this when enigmas like Portage County remain with the lacklustre Blue Book explanations. I think there is the odd case out there worth scratching ones head over, but they seem to grab the least attention, which can be both puzzling and frustrating.

Cheers.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM

psyche101, on 29 May 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

I personally own a 10" Dobsonian and have first hand witnessed what it is capable of, I have to say that it gives Mitch Stanley a massive advantage over the average viewer.

Hey Psyche, I dont doubt he had an advantage ove rthe average viewer, however it doesnt mean that he is talking about seeing the same thing as reported by others

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

I must agree that Mitch Stanley's impressions on the day should reign supreme based primarily on the superior visual capacity of his Dobsonian. Plus his observations were corroborated by others.

There are two types of people who enter this particular debate; the newcomers who aren't aware of the rather extensive analyses which have been performed and the old-timers who prefer to ignore the significance of those analyses.

I'm curious though Quillius, where were you planning to go with this argument?

Anyhow I dont doubt he did see a formation of planes....could these have been the scrambled jets (F15's)? or some other AF craft sent up?

Not sure if you were refering to me ignoring analysis? but I dont ignore the maths and the all other information thrashed out proving the 10pm were flares, I agree.

I just dont think the earlier reports and sightings are explained yet.

And as for newcomers, I assume you include all the 'skeptical' post that state 'it was flares' without understaning that we are talking of two differeing events on the same night and they therefore add to the confusion IMO.

If anybody would know a flight of A-10s dropping flares, it would be Fife.

2 hours difference between flare dropping and the first sighting. Do you copy that?

I did not say they came "from space", I said they came from "another place". My opinion is that while many humans think we know all the secrets of the universe by way of Newton and Einstein and others, we DO NOT KNOW many things. Point is, our interpretations of where any given UFO might have originated "from space" is probably quite limited and wrong.